How does the Federal Reserve 'own' 52% of the National Debt?

I

IIB

I've seen many compelling conspiracy theorist claims that the Federal Reserve is privately owned. So I dug into 'by whom' and have now found rather credible appearing counter-arguments that its 'shares' are owned by the 2500 member banks, meaning the shares aren't owned by a handful of tycoons or robber barrons directly.

Moreover its all explained away as any F.R. 'revenues' beyond the mere operation of the scheme are turned over the the US Treasury at the end of each year.

But if 52% of the $10Trillion US National Debt is 'owned' by the F.R., how does any of this make sense?

And however it works, what is the interest to the Fed's cut of the debt (not the other 'owners' of US debt)?
 
Quote from IIB:

I've seen many compelling conspiracy theorist claims that the Federal Reserve is privately owned. So I dug into 'by whom' and have now found rather credible appearing counter-arguments that its 'shares' are owned by the 2500 member banks, meaning the shares aren't owned by a handful of tycoons or robber barrons directly.

Moreover its all explained away as any F.R. 'revenues' beyond the mere operation of the scheme are turned over the the US Treasury at the end of each year.

But if 52% of the $10Trillion US National Debt is 'owned' by the F.R., how does any of this make sense?

And however it works, what is the interest to the Fed's cut of the debt (not the other 'owners' of US debt)?
More...

Youtube Ron Paul

Or for neat-o explanation of the Fed and money supply look up zeitgeist adendum, but turn it off after the first time the old guy starts talking because it gets kind of weird after that haha
 
Well I'm aware of all of those sort of arguments. But tonight I seen this very detailed explaination of it:
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/woolsey-fed.html

It seems very apologist towards the Fed, shifting all notions of the Fed actually 'owning' anything or its 'owners' making any PROFITS. It paints it as if there is no way shape or form of it being tyrannical, and in effect actually owned by 'the government'.

But it's arguments are seemingly solid. So I'm trying to frame this thread in understanding the viewpoint framework expressed there... up to where I get stuck on it which is how can 'the government' owe itself money?
 
Quote from IIB:

Well I'm aware of all of those sort of arguments. But tonight I seen this very detailed explaination of it:
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/woolsey-fed.html
More...

Look at his sources, it says enough. Quite biased and searched for long-winded rationalizations. He can't even deny the basic allegations, just make excuses. Overall, his conclusion is to just "trust them".

You have to understand that the whole central bank concept is very very old. It is the same old scheme, just modernized to confuse those who may get a clue.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."
- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

They don't mind telling you their plans.
 
OK. So then "the banks" "own" the "Fed", and therefore the National Debt? Meaning whoever owns the banks best positioned in regard to that ND are the ones who own "the country" or "the government"?

In part I'm trying to understand how this thing works in regard to WHO "owns" the nation by extension of who "owns" the Fed/debt, and the ultimate nature of this 'ownership'...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top